Flynn reverses guilty plea!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Bottom Line: Flynn has not withdrawn his guilty plea

Bottom line: the government has not yet submitted "such information to the Court for in camera review," mistake.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Bottom Line: Flynn has not withdrawn his guilty plea

So?

If "information" used to prosecute him was illegally obtained and it get tossed, then there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him. Apparently his "communications" were captured by the now infamous FISA warrant. And it appears the Judge is facilitating the review of such "exculpatory" information.

And as I pointed out pursuant to FRCP Rule 11(d) he still can withdraw it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So? Do you want to bet?

If "information" used to prosecute him was illegally obtained and it get tossed, then there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him. .

Any bets on that if counselor? bambino, how about you?

[Yssup Rider]

Horseshit,

[themystic]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So?

SO the OP, you're buddy, is a fucking LIAR

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

SO the OP, you're buddy, is a fucking LIAR

How do you know? You don't!

You and your buddy, WTF, are awfully quick to tag folks with the "LIAR LABEL"!

Is your real name "themystic"?

[Munchmasterman]

The following post describes where the "communications" were obtained.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Where did the evidence about what Flynn and the Russian talked about come from?
From recording the Russian's phone calls. He is not a US citizen and unlike flynn, he registered as a foreign agent. FISA ordered the ambassador's calls monitored because of national security. Funny thing is that flynn was told in November it was almost a certainty that the ambassador's calls were being monitored.

Still with me? The FBI knew what they had talked about. They brought flynn in to talk to him. During that interview, they asked, among other things, if he had discussed sanctions with the ambassador.
He claimed he hadn't. He had just lied to the FBI.

Now you sit and think about what possible evidence could be held back that would cast a doubt on his guilt.
How do I know flynn lied? Because he signed a confession included in his plea bargain. What's that you say? Could I please let your lazy fucking ass see the charge sheet and the plea bargain document?
Of course, I will.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...92-1-0-2-1.pdf[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
a

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Same "ORDERS" and the same Rule 11(d), FRCP.

1. Illegal interception of a communication.
2. Exclusion of the intercepted communication pursuant to "Exclusionary Rule."
3. Basis for Rule 11(d) Motion to Withdraw Plea.
4. Dismissal of charges for insufficient evidence because of #2.

But you two loudmouthed pukes wouldn't know about that shit would you?

Yes as a matter of fact.
I also know they don't appear, based on the information in the article, to be relevant in this case because the "interception" is legal.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's almost March and still nothing but copy and paste from the soothsayers who are pretending they know what Flynn is thinking!

Why post anything else other than this reminder to you? Other than to ask when I claimed to know what flynn was thinking that is?
You miss the statement about where the "communications" came from and you make up I said I knew what he is thinking.
More of the same BS from you.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So?

If "information" used to prosecute him was illegally obtained and it get tossed, then there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him.The court decides whether evidence obtained in a questionable search is admissible or not. Moot point in this case. The evidence comes from a good FISA warrant. Apparently his "communications" were captured by the now infamous FISA warrant. No, they weren't. And it appears the Judge is facilitating the review of such "exculpatory" information.The judge is reviewing the case to see if there is any "exculpatory" information.

And as I pointed out pursuant to FRCP Rule 11(d) he still can withdraw it.

I never said he couldn't withdraw/change it. I read the orders you posted quite some time ago and never disagreed with them. I said I didn't think they would affect the plea bargain. The main reason, which I had included in the post above, is the "communications" were captured by the FISA on the ambassador's phone. Which is not "the now infamous FISA warrant".

Interesting the original order required more possible actions by the government than the current order
This one is on the books as a conviction at this point.

"The current version demands less of federal prosecutors, Simpson notes. Before last week’s filings, the government would have had to turn over impeachment evidence to Flynn’s team as well as exculpatory evidence; now any impeachment evidence that might exist could be withheld.

There’s no suggestion that such evidence does exist. This mistake by Sullivan’s clerks seems to have gotten swept up in rampant social media conspiracy theories aimed at discrediting the investigation into President Trump. There’s no indication that Flynn will soon withdraw his plea agreement or that there exists exculpatory evidence that would prompt him to do so.

The answer to Napolitano’s question, “Was he guilty?” seems to be what it was last December: According to the FBI and Michael Flynn, yes."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.eb7266fd2785
PS There haven't been any updates since Feb 22

[bambino]

“The answer to Napolitano’s question, “Was he guilty?” seems to be what it was last December: According to the FBI and Michael Flynn, yes."

Actually, according to Comey and the FBI agents who interviewed Fynn, they didn’t believe Flynn was lying. Besides, the FBI doesn’t have prosecutorial powers anyway. Unless a hack like Loretta Lynch hands them that power. It was Yates and now Mueller that decided Flynn lied. The bottomline, Flynn’s sentencing has been postponed until May. One can speculate why.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...rticle/2648896

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

The bottomline, Flynn’s sentencing has been postponed until May. One can speculate why.

Initially, sentencing is scheduled "down the road" to give time for a pre-sentence report, which would include a "cooperation" reduction in points. Because of the "cooperation" factor it would make since for it to be pushed off a bit until the "cooperation" had been completed. In conjunction with the news of the tainted FISA warrant application and the result of a tainted warrant and interception, which has not been resolved by the Courts (the media and the hacks on here don't make shit!) there may well be an intervening 12(d) motion to withdraw the plea based on the 4th amendment violation, which would mean that any evidence obtained by the illegal interception could be tossed.

That could be appealed and take a year or so to sort on, ending up in the SCOTUS for a final word on the subject of false FISA applications.

This the sentencing delay (I saw a motion on the docket back in January asking for the sentencing to be delayed. The timing is not "coincidental"!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The following post describes where the "communications" were obtained.

Why you post on something you know about rather than copying and pasting bullshit from the anti-trump media. WTF keeps doing that and now your're the copy cat.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Initially, sentencing is scheduled "down the road" to give time for a pre-sentence report, which would include a "cooperation" reduction in points. Because of the "cooperation" factor it would make since for it to be pushed off a bit until the "cooperation" had been completed. In conjunction with the news of the tainted FISA warrant application and the result of a tainted warrant and interception, which has not been resolved by the Courts (the media and the hacks on here don't make shit!) there may well be an intervening 12(d) motion to withdraw the plea based on the 4th amendment violation, which would mean that any evidence obtained by the illegal interception could be tossed.

That could be appealed and take a year or so to sort on, ending up in the SCOTUS for a final word on the subject of false FISA applications.

This the sentencing delay (I saw a motion on the docket back in January asking for the sentencing to be delayed. The timing is not "coincidental"!

Here’s another link proving WTF doesn’t know what he’s talking about concerning Sullivan’s “standing” order. It has been revised with a special footnote concerning this case:


https://www.dailywire.com/news/27315...stigiacomo?amp

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Initially, sentencing is scheduled "down the road" to give time for a pre-sentence report, which would include a "cooperation" reduction in points. Because of the "cooperation" factor it would make since for it to be pushed off a bit until the "cooperation" had been completed. In conjunction with the news of the tainted FISA warrant application and the result of a tainted warrant and interception, which has not been resolved by the Courts (the media and the hacks on here don't make shit!) there may well be an intervening 12(d) motion to withdraw the plea based on the 4th amendment violation, which would mean that any evidence obtained by the illegal interception could be tossed.

That could be appealed and take a year or so to sort on, ending up in the SCOTUS for a final word on the subject of false FISA applications.

This the sentencing delay (I saw a motion on the docket back in January asking for the sentencing to be delayed. The timing is not "coincidental"!

Sentencing could be delayed until he testifies in court, till his part in the investigation is concluded, or be dependant on some other factor.
You keep talking about a "tainted" FISA application, which you claim invalidates the warrant, and the interception blah,
blah, blah. You're right, the hacks don't call shit. Confused hacks don't even have their basic facts straight.
You are a confused hack. You don't understand which FISA warrant the intercepts came from. There is no question about the legality of the warrant used. None.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why you post on something you know about rather than copying and pasting bullshit from the anti-trump media. WTF keeps doing that and now your're the copy cat.

I did post about something I knew. I've seen it reported by several reliable sources. They reported that warrants on the Russian's phones provided the evidence/information that nailed flynn. You don't know that fact or won't acknowledge it as being fact. So we disagree. To settle the disagreement we tell where our info comes from.
By citing the source, by way of copy and paste in this case, it is supposed to keep a discussion moving forward by establishing the facts. I ciiote the Washington Post as the source for my information. The are other sources that say the same thing.
You cite no one, I am aware of (other than an opinion piece), concerning where the information came from, offer nothing to refute the reporting done by the Post, and you complain about copy and paste.

At this point he is guilty. The new judge asked for any exculpatory evidence be produced for the defendant. There is no reinvestigation. Only a review of the paperwork/evidence.
Only the hacks are reading more into this whole thing than there is.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by bambino

“The answer to Napolitano’s question, “Was he guilty?” seems to be what it was last December: According to the FBI and Michael Flynn, yes."

Actually, according to Comey and the FBI agents who interviewed Fynn, they didn’t believe Flynn was lying. Besides, the FBI doesn’t have prosecutorial powers anyway. Unless a hack like Loretta Lynch hands them that power. It was Yates and now Mueller that decided Flynn lied. The bottomline, Flynn’s sentencing has been postponed until May. One can speculate why.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...rticle/2648896

Actually, he pleaded guilty and signed a statement saying he did commit that crime.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Actually, he pleaded guilty and signed a statement saying he did commit that crime.

He did. But why did he? This whole shit show is unraveling. Stay tuned Munchie. Curl up with a nice bottle of Mad Dog. This from a true legal mind:


https://www.usapoliticstoday.org/der...-mueller-case/

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by bambino

Here’s another link proving WTF doesn’t know what he’s talking about concerning Sullivan’s “standing” order. It has been revised with a special footnote concerning this case:


https://www.dailywire.com/news/27315...stigiacomo?amp

You need to go back through the posts.
WFT posted the second order, the current version, that explains why it was posted.

The second order requires less action than the original order.

"The problem arose on Dec. 12 of last year, shortly after Sullivan took over Flynn’s case. His clerks filed his standing Brady order — but filed the old version, not the version that was updated in November. That mistake was uncovered and, last week, the new version of the standing Brady order was filed. In making the change, the error was noted:


“After this case was randomly assigned to the Court on December 7, 2017,” the docket reads, “such an order was entered on December 12, 2017. Unfortunately, the prior version of the order was inadvertently entered rather than the Court’s current version.”

The current version demands less of federal prosecutors, Simpson notes. Before last week’s filings, the government would have had to turn over impeachment evidence to Flynn’s team as well as exculpatory evidence; now any impeachment evidence that might exist could be withheld.

There’s no suggestion that such evidence does exist. This mistake by Sullivan’s clerks seems to have gotten swept up in rampant social media conspiracy theories aimed at discrediting the investigation into President Trump. There’s no indication that Flynn will soon withdraw his plea agreement or that there exists exculpatory evidence that would prompt him to do so."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2d53db081e3c

The link you posted is from Feb. 19. The one I posted was Feb. 22.
There have been no updates concerning any real changes in status since then